Trump: I Have Investigators in Hawaii...'They Cannot Believe What They're Finding'

[del]

You know that things have really gone off the rails when 9/11 inside nutjob sounds more reasonable than the birfers!

that is a true fact

what i just said to Toto,applies to you as well.

hokey dory

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[SIZE=+0]You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings, or the freakin republican governor of Hawaii would have noticed such a discrepancy, or the hundreds and hundreds of judges and justices - all the way up to the Supreme Court, that have been presented such starling evidence, they surely would have caught such an amazing fact that you there, the amazing littlereb, have discovered.

But NO. Notta one. NO ONE in any capacity of power or authority is as intelligent and as keyed in on the details as you and your stunningly capable birther crew.

It's amazing these people who eat, breath, live and drink the law, and records, and details of government can even hold a candle or tie their shoes, compared to what you there, all by your noggin self, can produce out of your matchbox basement dwelling as your cheeto's-laden fingers educate the rest of the world with your awesome mensa-skillz.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings

There has been two people who have said they looked at the BC. None that you mentioned would have seen the document too notice the discrepancies. So try again.

 

[edthecynic]

That statement is what's being debate. Has he?

No it isn't, the document released says "This serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." It's even stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka

What's missing?
Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar's Office.

It appears the stamp shows it acceptable to the registrar's office by Jun - 6 2007.

 

[edthecynic]

[SIZE=+0]You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings, or the freakin republican governor of Hawaii would have noticed such a discrepancy, or the hundreds and hundreds of judges and justices - all the way up to the Supreme Court, that have been presented such starling evidence, they surely would have caught such an amazing fact that you there, the amazing littlereb, have discovered.

But NO. Notta one. NO ONE in any capacity of power or authority is as intelligent and as keyed in on the details as you and your stunningly capable birther crew.

It's amazing these people who eat, breath, live and drink the law, and records, and details of government can even hold a candle or tie their shoes, compared to what you there, all by your noggin self, can produce out of your matchbox basement dwelling as your cheeto's-laden fingers educate the rest of the world with your awesome mensa-skillz.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings

There has been two people who have said they looked at the BC. None that you mentioned would have seen the document too notice the discrepancies. So try again.

No there have been t media people who have seen it. You have no idea how many government people have seen it. Obviously someone in the registrar's office saw it!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No it isn't, the document released says "This serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." It's even stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka

What's missing?
Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar's Office.

It appears the stamp shows it acceptable to the registrar's office by Jun - 6 2007.

. Make it accepted for someone who's place of birth is in question and who has already comminted to running for President. That makes it a fraud thanks, especially since Hawaii is a democratic controlled state. You are not helping your argument.

 

[paperview]

[SIZE=+0]You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings, or the freakin republican governor of Hawaii would have noticed such a discrepancy, or the hundreds and hundreds of judges and justices - all the way up to the Supreme Court, that have been presented such starling evidence, they surely would have caught such an amazing fact that you there, the amazing littlereb, have discovered.

But NO. Notta one. NO ONE in any capacity of power or authority is as intelligent and as keyed in on the details as you and your stunningly capable birther crew.

It's amazing these people who eat, breath, live and drink the law, and records, and details of government can even hold a candle or tie their shoes, compared to what you there, all by your noggin self, can produce out of your matchbox basement dwelling as your cheeto's-laden fingers educate the rest of the world with your awesome mensa-skillz.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings

There has been two people who have said they looked at the BC. None that you mentioned would have seen the document too notice the discrepancies. So try again.

Oh, you mean you need special skillz to see the wildly unusual (to you) "African" and "Date Filed by" - I mean, nearly 75 court cases, and nota one can even get them to consider such obviously flawed information.

Go figger.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[SIZE=+0]You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings, or the freakin republican governor of Hawaii would have noticed such a discrepancy, or the hundreds and hundreds of judges and justices - all the way up to the Supreme Court, that have been presented such starling evidence, they surely would have caught such an amazing fact that you there, the amazing littlereb, have discovered.

But NO. Notta one. NO ONE in any capacity of power or authority is as intelligent and as keyed in on the details as you and your stunningly capable birther crew.

It's amazing these people who eat, breath, live and drink the law, and records, and details of government can even hold a candle or tie their shoes, compared to what you there, all by your noggin self, can produce out of your matchbox basement dwelling as your cheeto's-laden fingers educate the rest of the world with your awesome mensa-skillz.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings

There has been two people who have said they looked at the BC. None that you mentioned would have seen the document too notice the discrepancies. So try again.

No there have been t media people who have seen it. You have no idea how many government people have seen it. Obviously someone in the registrar's office saw it!!!

Nope no one but the director of Hawaii's vitals and the person over the records department have said they have seen it, according to the Hawaii state law no one else could look at the BC. Not even the governor.

 

[The T]

Obama may have a criminal past...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[SIZE=+0]You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings, or the freakin republican governor of Hawaii would have noticed such a discrepancy, or the hundreds and hundreds of judges and justices - all the way up to the Supreme Court, that have been presented such starling evidence, they surely would have caught such an amazing fact that you there, the amazing littlereb, have discovered.

But NO. Notta one. NO ONE in any capacity of power or authority is as intelligent and as keyed in on the details as you and your stunningly capable birther crew.

It's amazing these people who eat, breath, live and drink the law, and records, and details of government can even hold a candle or tie their shoes, compared to what you there, all by your noggin self, can produce out of your matchbox basement dwelling as your cheeto's-laden fingers educate the rest of the world with your awesome mensa-skillz.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

You'd think, with such OBVIOUS information, ONE, at least ONE of the Secretaries of State, or the hundreds of electors at the electoral college would have objected, or at least ONE of the senators or congresspersons would be holding hearings

There has been two people who have said they looked at the BC. None that you mentioned would have seen the document too notice the discrepancies. So try again.

Oh, you mean you need special skillz to see the wildly unusual (to you) "African" and "Date Filed by" - I mean, nearly 75 court cases, and nota one can even get them to consider such obviously flawed information.

Go figger.

How would you know the discrepancies were there unless you had several document to compare them too? Did the courts have more than obama's BC to make the comparisons? And don't assume they did. give some evidence that they did.

 

[edthecynic]

What's missing?
Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar's Office.

It appears the stamp shows it acceptable to the registrar's office by Jun - 6 2007.

. Make it accepted for someone who's place of birth is in question and who has already comminted to running for President. That makes it a fraud thanks, especially since Hawaii is a democratic controlled state. You are not helping your argument.

You should make sure they are prosecuted for that fraud. You and Dump Truck!

 

[idb]

What's missing?
Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar's Office.

It appears the stamp shows it acceptable to the registrar's office by Jun - 6 2007.

. Make it accepted for someone who's place of birth is in question and who has already comminted to running for President. That makes it a fraud thanks, especially since Hawaii is a democratic controlled state. You are not helping your argument.

I would think that the registrar's office would know better than you if the certificate is legitimate or not.
So, if your position is that you don't believe anyone that testifies that the BC is legitimate, there can be no further discussion.

 

[paperview]

There has been two people who have said they looked at the BC. None that you mentioned would have seen the document too notice the discrepancies. So try again.

Oh, you mean you need special skillz to see the wildly unusual (to you) "African" and "Date Filed by" - I mean, nearly 75 court cases, and nota one can even get them to consider such obviously flawed information.

Go figger.

How would you know the discrepancies were there unless you had several document to compare them too? Did the courts have more than obama's BC to make the comparisons? And don't assume they did. give some evidence that they did.

You appear to be completely oblious to the 74 court cases brought before the courts, some by the queen bee birther, Oily Titz, and some by Phillip Berg, soem by Jeremy Corsi, and a whole host of characters that make the Flintstones look like serious drama.

All of them thrown out, dismissed or katpuzted. Thousands of pages presented to magistrates. Some of them even had the brainstorm you think you're having.

And still...nota one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It appears the stamp shows it acceptable to the registrar's office by Jun - 6 2007.

. Make it accepted for someone who's place of birth is in question and who has already comminted to running for President. That makes it a fraud thanks, especially since Hawaii is a democratic controlled state. You are not helping your argument.

I would think that the registrar's office would know better than you if the certificate is legitimate or not.
So, if your position is that you don't believe anyone that testifies that the BC is legitimate, there can be no further discussion.

and refusal to see the discrepancies when they have laid out for you too see is even worse.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, you mean you need special skillz to see the wildly unusual (to you) "African" and "Date Filed by" - I mean, nearly 75 court cases, and nota one can even get them to consider such obviously flawed information.

Go figger.

How would you know the discrepancies were there unless you had several document to compare them too? Did the courts have more than obama's BC to make the comparisons? And don't assume they did. give some evidence that they did.

You appear to be completely oblious to the 74 court cases brought before the courts, some by the queen bee birther, Oily Titz, and some by Phillip Berg, soem by Jeremy Corsi, and a whole host of characters that make the Flintstones look like serious drama.

All of them thrown out, dismissed or katpuzted. Thousands of pages presented to magistrates. Some of them even had the brainstorm you think you're having.

And still...nota one.

Are the discrepancies there? The reason most were given because they were thrown out of court was because they according to the courts had no legal standing. It wasn't because the courts view the BC.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So why would the certificate numbers be out of sequence?

There is a very common sense reason as to why certificate numbers of two people born close together could be "out of sequence". It requires an understanding of "HOW" paperwork is processed. My undergraduate degree is in Industrial Technology which includes an area having to do with line queue theory, process control, and motion-and-time studies***.

Two factors (off the top of my head) for the sequence being different from a process standpoint.

1. Human based processing v. Computer based processing.

2. Parallel processing v. Serial Processing​

1. Human based processing v. Computer based processing.
Humans tend to process batches of paperwork in what is known as a LIFO Order (Last In, First Out). In contrast to its counter part FIFO (First In, First Out). A clerk sits at a desk and receives batches of work to perform. Unless the process it tightly controlled (and government workers have never been known for tight control of processes) they will by default tend to process paperwork in the most convenient order. (<<-- Note that says "convenient order") The most convenient order may not be the order they were received, more than likely it is taking that which is on top of the "stack" (Last In) to be process (First out). With human processing it is very easy to see an older piece of paper (First In) be processed (Last Out) later. With human processing their is no guaranteed sequence that can be relied on. Unlike modern computer systems that run batches in sequence because they are programmed for FIFO. For example look at the printout of your credit card statement, transactions are processed FIFO down to the fractions of a second, so you better hope the payment gets in before that big charge.


2. Parallel processing v. Serial Processing
The second factor that no one mentions is parallel v. serial processing. Lets say that the government did have tight controls to ensure FIFO v. LIFO in how a clerk processes paperwork (not likely, but lest assume). Another factor is that if ALL birth records from a hospital are shipped to a central location where ONLY ONE clerk processes the data, then you can question sequence. However if transactions are processed at multiple locations and by multiple clerks then you run into sequence being off by parallel processing in two degrees (multiple locations and multiple clerks). Because the same type of paperwork is processed in different locations and by different people there is no way to control the sequence. Even if all the paperwork is processed at a single location, but by multiple clerks then you still cannot control the sequence once the paperwork is routed to the clerks. They may both use the same "log" to assign numbers, but it depends on workload and time of day as to when they get to processing their individuals "stacks". Remember it is very unlikely that the same clerk exclusively issues birth certificates, they may also processes death certificates, marriage certificates, and divorce degrees. Different clerks my work on different functions at different times.


Interesting question, thanks, I haven't had to "think" in those terms in a number of years. I'm a computer/database administrator know and computer batch processing can be quite a bit different. Things tend to get - wonky - when humans get involved.






***If you have watched the 1950's version of the movie "Cheaper by the Dozen", it had to do with Frank Gilbreth who did a lot of work in motion-and-time from a manufacturing standpoint. If you doubt me, Google "Therblig" and see what you get. It's kind of funny really, well in geeky sort of way.


>>>>

That almost makes sense and viable, but for the fact of the timeline. obama's BC was filed on aug 8 the two twins BC were filed on Aug 11 of the same year. I could see what you said happening if filing the paperwork happen on the same day.

Depends on when the hospital clerk decided to process his/her paperwork and forward it to the government clerk so they could process his/her batch and make a birth certificate.

I doubt if the Hospital employed a messenger so that as soon as a kid is squirted out it could be like relay race to hand off a form from one person to another to get it to the government clerk as soon as possible.

It all depends on when things are sent, in addition to how.

Sorry the sequence number is not logically a "smoking gun".


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is a very common sense reason as to why certificate numbers of two people born close together could be "out of sequence". It requires an understanding of "HOW" paperwork is processed. My undergraduate degree is in Industrial Technology which includes an area having to do with line queue theory, process control, and motion-and-time studies***.

Two factors (off the top of my head) for the sequence being different from a process standpoint.

1. Human based processing v. Computer based processing.

2. Parallel processing v. Serial Processing​

1. Human based processing v. Computer based processing.
Humans tend to process batches of paperwork in what is known as a LIFO Order (Last In, First Out). In contrast to its counter part FIFO (First In, First Out). A clerk sits at a desk and receives batches of work to perform. Unless the process it tightly controlled (and government workers have never been known for tight control of processes) they will by default tend to process paperwork in the most convenient order. (<<-- Note that says "convenient order") The most convenient order may not be the order they were received, more than likely it is taking that which is on top of the "stack" (Last In) to be process (First out). With human processing it is very easy to see an older piece of paper (First In) be processed (Last Out) later. With human processing their is no guaranteed sequence that can be relied on. Unlike modern computer systems that run batches in sequence because they are programmed for FIFO. For example look at the printout of your credit card statement, transactions are processed FIFO down to the fractions of a second, so you better hope the payment gets in before that big charge.


2. Parallel processing v. Serial Processing
The second factor that no one mentions is parallel v. serial processing. Lets say that the government did have tight controls to ensure FIFO v. LIFO in how a clerk processes paperwork (not likely, but lest assume). Another factor is that if ALL birth records from a hospital are shipped to a central location where ONLY ONE clerk processes the data, then you can question sequence. However if transactions are processed at multiple locations and by multiple clerks then you run into sequence being off by parallel processing in two degrees (multiple locations and multiple clerks). Because the same type of paperwork is processed in different locations and by different people there is no way to control the sequence. Even if all the paperwork is processed at a single location, but by multiple clerks then you still cannot control the sequence once the paperwork is routed to the clerks. They may both use the same "log" to assign numbers, but it depends on workload and time of day as to when they get to processing their individuals "stacks". Remember it is very unlikely that the same clerk exclusively issues birth certificates, they may also processes death certificates, marriage certificates, and divorce degrees. Different clerks my work on different functions at different times.


Interesting question, thanks, I haven't had to "think" in those terms in a number of years. I'm a computer/database administrator know and computer batch processing can be quite a bit different. Things tend to get - wonky - when humans get involved.






***If you have watched the 1950's version of the movie "Cheaper by the Dozen", it had to do with Frank Gilbreth who did a lot of work in motion-and-time from a manufacturing standpoint. If you doubt me, Google "Therblig" and see what you get. It's kind of funny really, well in geeky sort of way.


>>>>

That almost makes sense and viable, but for the fact of the timeline. obama's BC was filed on aug 8 the two twins BC were filed on Aug 11 of the same year. I could see what you said happening if filing the paperwork happen on the same day.

Depends on when the hospital clerk decided to process his/her paperwork and forward to the government clerk so they could process his/her batch and make a birth certificate.

I doubt if the Hospital employed a messenger so that as soon as a kid is squirted out it could be like relay race to hand off a form from one person to another to get it to the government clerk as soon as possible.

It all depends on when things are sent, in addition to how.

>>>>

You might have a valid point but for the filedates
obama's was filed Aug 8th the twins were filed Aug 11th

 

[edthecynic]

Obama may have a criminal past...

You should go Right up to that criminal and make a Citizen's Arrest!!!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

How come in the hospital itself, okay? This is one of the…in the hospital itself, there’s no records of his birth. In other words, it doesn’t say how much they paid, where is the doctor, here’s your room bill. You know, all the

Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | Trump Conducting Hawaii Investigation Into Obama's Birthplace

You should have read the whole article.....

It was heck finding it as it's old now.

But there is a record of his birth, there's a BC. In that same interview Dump Truch lied about his geandmother being at Obama's birth, so how stupid do you have top be to believe anything Dump Truck says???

Again, I watched that interview with Obama's grandmother on Youtube with two people from Kenya. When she said she was present at his birth, that's what she said, she was talking about Obama JR, not her son. He was not lying. Obama's grandmother says she was there at his birth and she never left Kenya. The Kenyan ambassador says Obama was born in Kenya....everybody says he was born there except him and there is no proof that he was born here.

When a talk show host asked the Kenyan ambassador if Obama's birthplace in Kenya was going to become an historic landmark, the ambassador replied, "It already is..."

somehow none of that means anything to the Obama deniars.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Seems to me, if there were proof he was born in any of the hospitals, it would have surfaced by now, and they'd be using a doctor that hadn't retired 4 years before he was born.

Well I can't argue with that. Still . . solid proof is needed vs. just his word.

I agree. and we don't have solid proof either way. IMO his so called "birthcerticate" is a sorry excuse for proof and until he shows his long form, he's just a pretender to the throne. The fact that he won't makes me believe it doesn't exist. To tell the truth, it doesn't matter, he still traveled on an Indonesian passport after the age of majority and since Indonesia doesn't accept duel citizenship he would have had to give up his American citizenship and that also makes him unqualified. The reason the Supreme court continues to refuse to hear the cases is because they know it would tear out country apart when the truth comes out.

amen to that.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Obama may have a criminal past...

MAY have a criminal past? the elite who select these candidates and put them into office,make sure the candidate that gets elected is always someone with a criminal past.
must see video below.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw]YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version[/ame]